Saturday, January 31, 2015

My health issues have caught up with me yesterday and I still feel terrible. I hope to feel better on Monday but in the meantime I have a favor to ask. Please:

Don't email me (unless this is a major emergency)

Don't post questions here

Don't expect more than reposts from other sources

I will reply to emails on Monday, okay?b) SYRIZAOkay, you win. I will suspend judgment. But if really Greece was not consulted, then Greece should now introduce an official protest. Not in the media, but at the EC. But okay, fair enough, I will suspend jdugementc) Photo of Nazi goonsGuys, when I wrote "FSB agents impersonating Nazis" I was *jocking* for Pete's sake! How can anybody seriously believe that I meant that?! Valentin D: головой думать надо, а не....., а бабушке - привет!Some dismissed it all under the heading "in any country or group you can find bla bla bla". Yeah, except that these guys are from the Azov deathsquad, i.e. the junta's "Pretorian guard wannabes" who are now being disbanded, but not for human right violations or Nazi salutes, but for cowardice before the enemy. Just like the last photo of Ukrainian Nazis was of cops, not just anybody. I am not trying to prove that most Ukrainians are Nazi - they are not - but I am trying to illustrate that the stench of the Nazi ideology permeates the power base of the junta.What the picture Photoshopped? Oh come on...d) Donbass newsSo far so good. As far as I can tell, if the "Debaltsevo cauldron" is not quite closed, is is almost and the still open segment is completely under Novorussian fire. The Junta forces have taken huge losses (just as when the "Ialovaisk cauldron" was being formed). The Junta forces are doing better north and east of the Donetsk airport where the Novorussian lost at least one, possibly two, villages. Peski is still contested (as far as I know). The big news is that the DNR and LNR have released a joint statement saying that they are willing to return to the negotiating table on the basis of the Minsk Agreements, but only if the current and actual line of contact is used to separate the forces. In other words, they ain't gonna give back terrain which was won in hard battles. Good for them. Bottom line, the junta appears unable to break the resistance.Okay, now I need to go back to recovering.In the meantime here are the English language sources I recommend:FortRuss: http://fortruss.blogspot.ca/SouthFront: https://www.youtube.com/user/ygfrontKazzura: https://www.youtube.com/user/wintersodomy (I know, weird choice)Russia Insider: http://russia-insider.com/enColonel Cassad in English: http://cassad-eng.livejournal.com/and, of course, the rest of the Saker community:

Friday, January 30, 2015

(Translated by Eugene)I don’t know who exactly (Turchinov? Poroshenko?) commanded the Ukrainian army to disrupt the truce. But I am sure that this decision was taken in Washington.

It is not an accident that this suicidal provocation was preceded by the visit of G. Soros to Kiev. This elderly “philanthropist” who, together with the US Department of State, sponsored all post-soviet fascist regimes (from Saakashvili’s Georgia to Poroshenko’s Ukraine), was most qualified to assess the financial state of the regime in Kiev and to decide whether it still makes sense to continue prolongation of the agony by monetary injections. His public statement, reprinted by media on January 14, left no doubt - the patient is dead, the corpse is stiff, its resuscitation is meaningless.

Surely, Kiev has understood that if they scrape the bottom of the barrel and if Europe exerts itself then it is possible to collect money for further agony. But Soros clearly said about the necessity to find $50 billion just for 2015. While in 2014 (when the ignoramuses still hoped for the stabilization of the Kiev regime) US, EU and IMF together could scrape up only $20 billion, supposed to be stretched over 3 years. In fact, in 2014 Kiev got only $7.5 – 8 billion in credits. Clearly, in such conditions it is unrealistic to find $50 billion in a year. Soros himself told that he hopes only for a miracle.

Right after Soros’ unambiguous demand for the EU to finance Ukraine, the European media coverage of the Ukrainian crisis changed drastically, and it became clear that there will be no miracle. The European mass media (including German TV) and NGO’s (including Human Rights Watch) suddenly "saw the light" and found that the Kiev regime is at war with civilians, violating the laws and customs of war. Just a little bit longer and Europe will “realize” that Kiev is taken by a fascist junta that tramples its own constitution, and introduce sanctions against Russia for Kremlin’s economic cooperation (supply of coal and gas) with the Nazi regime.

Europe is not going to give money. USA are not going to help either (if they wanted to do that, the IMF would not procrastinate for six months but allocated tranche after tranche, instead). Under these conditions, supporting Ukraine’s mythical stability, as Washington was doing since the end of last summer, is absolutely meaningless. Back in August-September of 2014, Ukrainian politicians were divided into two groups: the majority – those who were ready to overthrow Poroshenko, expecting to receive some dividends from the next coup, and the minority taking a neutral position. Poroshenko himself had neither his own support group nor power prop. He is still the president only thanks to the US, which banned the coup at the time.

Washington knew perfectly well that Poroshenko is trying to negotiate with Moscow on the peaceful settlement (because only peace could give Poroshenko a chance to protect not just his presidential chair, but his life itself). United States needed a war and, seemingly, they did not want to keep the frightened and confused Petro Alexeyevich at the helm. But Americans were misled by Russian diplomacy. Peace was (and remains) beneficial for Russia, because it forces the United States and its European allies to keep the failed Ukrainian project alive and, therefore, to spend their scarce resources. The Ukrainian coup, intended to make from Kiev not only an eternal source of enmity between Russia and the EU, but also a black hole devouring Moscow’s resources, has not fulfilled any of its tasks -- a year after the coup, Ukraine continues to devour the US resources.

But since Ukraine is just one of many sites of global confrontation between Moscow and Washington, the further concentration of efforts on this site becomes unprofitable for the US. They cannot quit, because then the site will be taken by Russia, which would be a geopolitical defeat of Washington. Therefore, the site must be destroyed. Let the winner occupy the ruins; if they could not entangle him by the whole Ukraine, let he be entangled by the rotting and decaying corpse of Ukraine.

So, since for Russia it is better if Ukraine is destroyed by the US as late as possible, the Russian diplomacy pretended for almost a year, portraying weakness, confusion, and readiness to surrender. In anticipation of the fall of Russia, which would solve all their problems, the United States decided not to finish Ukraine. Why? If, after the victory over Russia, the problem of supporting the Kiev regime at the expense of Moscow would be solved by itself.

But everything good comes to an end sooner or later. By the beginning of December it became clear that Washington can push Russia as much as it likes, but it cannot make Russia fall, without falling itself even sooner. Taking into account the need to reduce the geopolitical frontline, to concentrate resources on the remaining priority areas, to leave the lost grounds, the question resurfaced again – what to do with Ukraine? As soon as it became clear that Soros is not going to find the necessary finances for Kiev, the fate of the country, politicians, the public and even the “creative class” accustomed to be immune to problems, was sealed. And the war reignited with renewed ferocity.

US knew perfectly well how unfit for action the Ukrainian army was and how the armed forces of DPR/LPR have strengthened during the peaceful respite. You don’t have to sit at the Chiefs of Staff Committee to estimate from open sources that with such intensive fights, which began on January 18th and continuing across the frontline, the Ukrainian army will run out of strength to conduct active operations in three to four weeks, and in one to three more weeks it will begin to fall apart. By the way, the Ukrainian artillery will be the first to disappear from the battlefield. Judging by the intensity and dynamics of the artillery fire of the parties, the Ukrainian army was behind DPR/LPR even on the volume of stored ammunition. While the republics clearly had a constant resupply, the Ukrainian army could not replenish consumable ammunition just as rapidly. After the Ukrainian artillery lost the opportunity of equal fight with the artillery of DPR/LPR, grinding of Ukrainian reserves was a matter of short time, and after the exhaustion of reserves the collapse of the front would became inevitable. Making up for the losses by means of mobilization was impossible, even if they could mobilize everyone. In the best case, the recruits would have been at the collection points, when the front already collapsed.

Americans knew all that, but still pushed the Ukrainian army into a senseless attack, which could not even start in earnest. That is the army was doomed to destruction and the front was destined to collapse. Why did the United States need that? Because, as we mentioned above, the US does not need the unattainable victory in Ukraine, they need the destruction of Ukraine, but by someone else's hands and with the greatest possible benefit for themselves.

Three to four weeks of intense fighting would not only bleed the Ukrainian army, but would also inflict substantial losses on the armed forces of DPR/LPR. From the first days, the militia admits its own losses of dozens if not hundreds killed and wounded, while noting that the losses of the Ukrainian army are much higher. Let us not forget that the armed forces of DPR/LPR currently do not exceed 30-40 thousand soldiers, even by the most optimistic estimates. Taking into account that 10-15 thousand are logistical and security units, there cannot be more than 20-25 thousand of combat troops. This means that even the loss of 3-5 thousand -- and this number of dead and wounded in three to four weeks of intense fighting is quite possible -- dramatically reduces the combat capability of the militia forces.

So, by the mid-late February the Ukrainian army would have to fall apart and start a disorganized retreat, but the scarce militia forces, having suffered serious losses, would be unable to take the territory left by the withdrawing Ukrainian troops. This would create vast power-vacuum areas between DPR/LNR and Kiev, where the militia and some residual government troops would alternate to each other as in a layered cake. To the extent that different streets of the same locality could be held by different armed groups. In addition, while the DPR/LPR armed forces are organized as more or less regular structures with a unified chain of command, the army of Kiev keeps sliding to irregular formations, which, with the death of the last regular units, would finally transform to a bunch of Nazi gangs and outright criminals partially diluted by completely kooky “veterans of the anti-terrorist operation”.

In this situation, Nazi battalions concentrated in the major cities of the southeast in order to maintain the power in Kiev, will grow more irritated and the Kiev propaganda will become more nervous. This would increase the bitterness towards the power that "betrayed us” as well as pro-Russian activists -- "the 5th column that stabbed us in the back". Any pretext will be enough to inflame the whole country. However, in order to paralyze the world community and to disable its instantaneous and consistent reaction, the pretext for the repeat of the Ruanda scenario (mutual senseless massacre) must be beyond belief and, at the same time, radically change the current political situation.

That is, it is not enough to organize a loud act of terror or a series of such acts on behalf of “pro-Russian partisans” or “FSB (GRU, SVR) agents”. This provocation must move the Nazi community and channel its efforts in the desired direction. Besides, the Ukrainian government must be (or look) paralyzed. Finally, this event should be sufficiently bloody, sufficiently immoral and touch those strata of the society, which are perceived by the Nazis as their own. These conditions cannot be satisfied with a single yet spectacular act of terror (such problems cannot be solved even by an explosion at Chernobyl).

Clearly, first of all they would need death of a major political figure or figures, so that allegedly (or really) paralyzed Ukrainian government could not take measures to restore the order, even if it wanted to. Poroshenko is a perfect sacral victim (especially because he is a traitor to the Americans), but in place of the "young prodigy" Yatsenyuk I would have not relaxed as well. After liquidation of Ukraine, Yatsenyuk becomes useless and even dangerous as he can testify to some sort of "International Tribunal for the Former Ukraine." For a country without economy this symbolic economist is just as useless as the great banker Yuschenko. Credits are not coming with or without Yatsenyuk. To die heroically is the only benefit that he can bring to the US. If someone blows up the parliament during a plenary session with both Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk in attendance, could you guess who will be declared guilty even before any investigation? Especially if some "people's avengers" would claim the responsibility afterwards?

Of course, the Nazis from battalions spit on Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk, but their battalion commanders will be there as well: Yarosh and sotnik Parasyuk and cossack Gavrylyuk – it would be so indecent not to avenge them. Moreover, if this seems not enough, they could carry out a series of terrorist attacks in the hospitals where the "heroes ATO" are treated. Imagine how barbaric killings of defenseless "heroes" will be presented by the Ukrainian media. They will not even need a training manual from the American Embassy; they will interpret everything correctly by themselves.

Well, and as "the cherry on the cake" one can explode the cascade of the Dnieper hydropower plants. This would solve several US problems at once. First, the real damage as a result of flooding will not be as great, but cameras positioned in advance in the right places will show pictures more terrible than during the tsunami in Thailand, and "experts" (incidentally, also on their own initiative) will immediately proclaim millions of potential victims. Second, this will immediately cut off the left bank of the Dnieper River from the right one. The dam will be blown, and bridges destroyed. That is, the militia will not able to cross the Dnieper without the help of the Russian Army. Third, if all this (from the elimination of the political elite to the man-made technological disasters) happens in three to five to ten days and if it becomes possible (sure it does, otherwise, why are we feeding CIA?) to accuse Russia and DPR/LPR of participation or at least of indirect sponsorship of the terrorists, the consolidated international community will not take quick control of Ukraine. Any participation of Russia will be blocked by the West accusing Moscow of complicity in the crime, but Western forces themselves could not stabilize the situation (even if the US and the EU decided to act without a UN resolution, they will not have the required operational capacity and available troops). Fourth, while the US needs that, even Turchinov can legitimately represent Kiev and lead the remnants of the government, which is dispensable as well.

The further course of events is also clear. The Nazis go to avenge their “brothers in arms”. The battalions spread out across the country, checking addresses from databases provided be fellow Nazis from the SBU and parts of the Ministry of Interior. The militia will still be able to quickly lend a helping hand to Kharkov, Left Bank districts of Dnepropetrovsk and Zaporozhye, to punch a land corridor to the Crimea. But without Russia’s help they cannot go further - there are no bridges. Left bank guerrilla groups are stronger. Of course, they will resist in Odessa, possibly even in Kiev, but the forces are not equal. The mere fact of partisan resistance on the right bank will deprive the junta of the support of the Ukrainian "creative class". Nobody needs them in the US, because they cannot work, but like to eat well. Nobody will feed them for their "Ukraineness" (who needs Ukraineness without Ukraine?). Each of them doesn’t know much, but taken together their testimonies would allow to piece together the full picture. And if in the course of Ukrainian excesses they will be killed in their own homes, so be it. "Tutsi" kill "Hutu", "Hutu" kill "Tutsi" - this is a sad feature of civil wars.

Thus, pushing Ukraine from Somalization to Ruandization, the United States are fully capable to minimize the effect of Russia’s victories, cover the traces of their own crimes with blood and, most importantly, make their participation in the coming settlement not just necessary, but inevitable, thus preserving their positions on the European continent and their control over the frightened EU.

We considered just one scenario of the possible provocation that would allow Washington to solve the problem of burning down the Ukrainian stand. In fact, there are hundreds of similar scenarios. All of them are real, and some of them must be already developed by the Americans. Otherwise, the security services, the military and the State Department are paid for nothing. The number of crimes already committed by Washington and Kiev suggests that the above scenario is not something extraordinary, on the contrary – it is well within the logic of the previous actions. In February 2014, a hundred of “Maidan” victims stimulated the coup; three hundred victims in the downed "Boeing" allowed to deploy the summer offensive; tens of thousands of killed Ukrainians serve as a means to pressure Russia. Then how the tens of thousands of victims are different from the hundreds of thousands or even millions? Only by the fact that the US did not have the need to organize a mass human sacrifice in Ukraine yet. Now there is such a need.

Two things can still save people:

Ukrainian executors’ traditional inability to implement even single American plan;

Putin’s traditional ability to come up with a decent way out of most desperate situations.

But these things are beyond the scope of rational analysis. They are matters of luck.Rostislav Ischenko, president of the Center for system analysis and forecasting, exclusively for the “Current Comments”.

The above analysis of the politics of SYRIZA and its government does not say anything that is untrue, but it leaves out of account a number of points that are relevant in estimating the political potential of the new Greek government.

For a start, SYRIZA does not touch on any taboo “conspiracy theory” issues, such as 911 and/or the militarization of climate. They have systematically and resolutely refused to engage any of them. They line up with the side of the climate debate that attributes all anomalous “natural” phenomena to “global warming” (of course the other side of that debate is also manipulated).

On Ukraine and Russia there are also limitations to what they can say or do. The senior member of SYRIZA most committed to policies not hostile to Russia, Nadia Valavani, who was foreign policy spokesperson before the election, has now been assigned to economic issues.

Giulietto Chiesa, the journalist and former Europarliamentarian who, I would say, has a “Vineyard of Saker” political orientation http://main.cse-initiative.eu/?p=242 , tried to work with SYRIZA in Greece and its equivalent in Italy but has been, and is, treated like a persona non grata by them. I don’t think there is anything personal about this. It is a reflection of political differences.

SYRIZA has continued the traditional Greek “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” orientation towards the Kurds, which in the new post-ISIS geopolitical environment involves a convenient alignment with American and international policies of border changes at the expense of Turkey. Greek and Turkish geopolitical interest are arguably converging, with the two countries having more potential common interests than diverging interests. Of course this is a complex issue but categories of “left wing” and “right wing”, while not entirely irrelevant, also probably do not have as much importance as is attributed to them by SYRIZA.

On the subject of “empowerment of citizens’ participation”, SYRIZA’s declared politics deserve more rigorous thought than they are getting. “Citizens’ participation” in a context of corporate mass media control is no guarantee of politics that are in the objective interests of citizens. It can be a Trojan horse facilitating imposition of policies by foreign-controlled NGOs. Possible first steps towards dealing with this problem have been put forward and discussed to a very limited extent https://epamaegina.wordpress.com/2012/04/02/independent-citizens-assembly/ but the discussion has not acquired any traction within SYRIZA. SYRIZA’s policies in this area are as vague as they are in other parliamentary parties.

Remember that great article "by Zakharchenko"?Well, this is the email I just got from a friend:

Zakharchenko is a smart man and does see the big
picture but he has nothing to do with that article. Its author is Eduard
Birov (who blogs as "Russkiy Malchik" here: http://russkiy-malchik.livejournal.com/). The other publication simply reposted Birov's article and added Zakharchenko's photo.

Can you see the tiny line in gray next to the red dot (which I added)?It points to this page: http://russkiy-malchik.livejournal.com/574917.htmlWhich is the live journal of the real author of this article. Not Zakharchenko.Oops.Sorry guys. Call me an idiot and I won't argue.Cheers,The Saker

Translated from Russian by J.Hawk for FortRuss If one is to speak without geopolitical complexities and nuances, the situation is extremely simple. This is a battle for the continent, for the international system, for one’s own taiga. They are desperately attacking us and are trying to take us down quickly. They use all means at their disposal, except for direct military intervention on Russia’s territory. They are destroying Russians outside their boarders, are raising foreign legions in order to invade the country. The West undertook to destroy us for the simple reason it is trying to avert its own destruction. The main factors are the destruction of the economy and of the political authorities of Russia. The main factor that might allow them to accomplish this is the decay within Russia, a split within the Russian government, the spreading of hatred among the people. That’s the reason for the constant provocations and the divide-and-conquer policies: inter-ethnic animosities, hatred toward the state, toward big capital (specifically the pro-Russian), toward the Orthodox Church, toward its own people and everything around it. All of that is being done to get Russia to destroy itself from within. But that’s precisely what is not happening. Everything is breaking apart against the unity of the government which has the support of its people which feels as if it was in a besieged fortress together with its leader. Even capitalists like Usmanov, Vekselberg, and others, who chose the West, moved their assets from offshore accounts back to Russia. Even Shuvalov swore his loyalty to Putin in Davos. To say nothing of ordinary mortals. No matter how much is said about “Putin the billionaire” and the government for sale, in spite of all the problems and the worsening financial situation, the solidarity with the national leader is not only not growing weaker, but is getting stronger. What is more, the people want him to act more firmly and not compromise with the West, no matter what the cost. This is what angers the West so. It is trying to promote division and chaos in Russia but it is not happening. The only remaining possibility is to try to destroy the economy, to deprive Russia from access to dollars (which for the West itself is the equivalent of hara-kiri), or to convince Russians that Putin is their enemy and thus deprive him of his national support. Yes, the so-called patriotic maidan. There is an opportunity here, but a small one. And it is closely tied to the situation on the Donbass. It’s a primitive calculation: keep shouting that “Donbass was abandoned”, “there are idiots in the Kremlin”, “Surkov sold out”, etc. Putin is kept out of the line of fire in the first round, and the whole emphasis is on the myth of a palace coup (i.e., Putin was betrayed, they are deceiving him). But they are also pushing the “Putin abandoned the Donbass” line, and sooner or later someone will shout “we have no Czar!” and “down with the Czar!”. This, in a situation of conflict with the West, ought to help topple the “Putin regime.” Donbass is being used as leverage to increase dissatisfaction with the Kremlin: if you introduce Russian forces, you become an international pariah and Hitler (which is more or less how he has been labeled), if you don’t send in troops, you are a traitor. Moscow chose an intermediate approach of containing Western aggression (until the x-hour) and indirect military confrontation on Ukraine’s territory. Yes, this is not the best variant from the perspective of the Donbass inhabitants. Moreover, it is a forced strategy based on the current realities: Russia’s forces are insufficient for a rapid victory over the consolidated West which, even though it is a giant clay feet, is still the dominant force in the world. As part of this post-Crimean strategy, Russia is taking steps which are far from obvious, but which nevertheless allow the aggression to be repelled. Yes, the position adopted by the eternal critics, who demand a cardinal resolution of the Ukrainian question arguing that it will have to be done “sooner or later”, may seem just and attractive to a patriotically-minded people who suffer at the sight of the dead inhabitants of the Donbass. But the critics don’t want to understand that in their desire to strike the final blow here and now, they are helping the West by forcing the Kremlin to strike when the West still has sufficient power. But the time is working against Washington. Even though it is assembling foreign legions against Russia and is taking Russian lives every day, it is not accomplishing its own task of destroying Russia in the nearest few months. To remove it from the world map as a single political unit. Break it up as an organism. If you want to take up the fight “sooner”, you may not find yourself living in Russia “later.” If the majority of us understand it with our hearts and minds, then the final victory will be Russia’s. But if we stray from that path, even with good intentions, in the hopes of solving the problem here and now, we will lose. Everyone’s duty right now is to help the Donbass to the extent they can, and not give in to emotions, even if they are sincere or provocative. Be fully prepared for the moment when the word comes “it’s time.” Translator’s Note: Zakharchenko is without any doubt one of the foremost Russian leaders of our time, one who not only proved himself an able commander of the DPR, but also someone who has a grasp of the big picture. And the big picture is one in which the West is suffering a systemic crisis not unlike the Great Depression, and is trying to stave off an internal breakdown through political and economic expansion. Hence the recent regime changes in the Middle East and elsewhere, hence the Maidan. EU and the US must keep finding new markets, otherwise their internal policies of austerity are bound to destroy their own economies. It need not be so—Greece’s recent election represents a ray of hope that Western institutions may yet be reformed. But one should not put too many hopes in the little Greece’s ability to stand alone against Germany and its quislings within the EU bureaucracy. What is happening in Ukraine is today’s equivalent of the Spanish Civil War. Then, too, USSR stood alone against fascism, hoping to enlist the help of like-minded citizens of Europe and to send a message to the aggressors. Had that war ended differently, tens of millions of people would not have perished in the Second World War. The stakes are equally high today. Russia’s stand is aimed at encouraging resistance within the EU (Greece’s suggests its stand is already having an effect) and also persuading would-be aggressors that the cost of aggression would be too high. As much is at stake in the Donbass today as was in Spain in 1938. Saker note: if anybody is still not aware of FortRuss - please make sure to visit this website: http://fortruss.blogspot.com/ . There you will find a wealth of very interesting news.

I get a lot of comments to the effect that the Geneva Conventions (GC) are only for victors, or inapplicable in war, or wishful thinking etc.I very much disagree.For the following reasons:First, there is a difference between a solider and a thug and that difference is not in the guns they carry, but in what they do and why they do it. Yes, there are indeed bad soldiers who act like thugs, but that does not mean that our society has to accept that and confuse aberration with the norm. The norm, the ideal, must be upheld for the sake of being civilized.Second, one does not observe the laws of civilized behavior because the other guy does it, one does that to be better then the other guy, to uphold the moral superiority over the amoral thug. You don't behave like a maniac not in order to spare anybody, but to retain your own honor and integrity.Third, and his is alwaystotally overlooked, when military units begin to murder, kill, torture or target civilians their discipline goes does the tubes very fast followed soon by their combat capability. Simply put - once you break the law, there is no law, and the unit's commander then becomes just an accomplice and pretty soon his authority will be challenged.Fourth, committing atrocities is counter-productive. Not only does it mess with the psyche of those committing the atrocities, it also strengthens the resolve of your opponents.I think that human right and laws of war ought to be taught to every single person on the planet and especially soldiers and I think that they should be respected and enforced.This being said, I don't think that supporting that mandates being naive or stupid about the realities of war. This is why the most important task of all is to do everything possible and impossible to prevent wars in the first place.

There has been a lot of criticisms of the battalion "Somali" and Givi for the way they treated the junta's prisoners, including the Colonel who, apparently, was the commander of the junta's 93rd Brigade. Let me begin by agreeing with those who say that the treatment of these prisoners did violate the Geneva conventions, no doubt about it in my mind.The law(or how it maybe would be in a perfect world)The first thing to notice here is that the Geneva Conventions (GC) apply
primarily to international conflicts, not to civil wars. They do
however have a Common Article 3
which is specifically tailored to "non-international conflicts".
Common article 3 has a section c which prohibit: "outrages upon personal
dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment". Since
Givi's purpose was precisely to humiliate his prisoners, you can say
that his actions were in violations of the GC.However,For one thing, neither Novorussia nor the Donetsk People's Republic have signed these conventions. But that is not that good an argument, because you can also refer to customary human rights instruments (the various conventions, treaties and agreements on human rights) which are always applicable anyway. More relevantly is the fact that the junta's forces have committed massive and systematic violations of human rights and the laws of war and that they are all at the very least to be considered as war criminals. Furthermore, unless they were wearing Ukrainian uniforms, they could also be considered as spies or mercenaries who do not benefit from the GC (but still are still protected under human rights instruments).Finally, all of the above assumes that these forces are acting under the orders of a legal and legitimate government, not an illegal junta which came to power by a coup and then attempted to legitimize that coup in totally sub-farcical elections.So while at face value Givi does violate the GC, I don't think any of those accusations would withstand a legal challenge in front of a court. And if they did, it would be for a very minor violation anyway.The real world (this is Russia!)Okay, not let's get real. This is not Geneva. This is Donetsk. I don't think that anybody will argue that these prisoners had it coming. Most of them had to chew on their beloved Ukie flag, and the Brigade commander got slapped (hard) by Givi. Frankly, we have to be honest here, ok?

When the Novorussians were treating junta prisoners with kindness, treating their wounds, feeding them, clothing them, offering them all sort of hospitality, I had a deluge of comments about "how stupid it is to be kind to Nazis" . And now that a bone fide junta death-squad leader and total SOB get's slapped, there is another deluge of comments about "Givi violating the GC". Come on!I have always said that junta death squad members did not get the kind of hospitality which the Novorussians extended to conscripts form the regular armed forces. Let me repeat here: they get summarily executed, many of them after short but very painful interrogations. This is what happened to the Wahabis in Chechnia, and this is what happens to Nazis in the Ukraine. Are these actions in violation of human rights conventions? Yes, totally. Does it break my heart? Not it all. This is war. Worse, this is a civil war. And this war was started by the junta, not the Novorussians. I remind you that according to the Nuremberg Trial, the ultimate crime is "aggression" because it "contains" all the other. In other words, the party who starts the war (civil or not) is the prime culprit for all the horrors which are triggered in the course of this war.I also remind that you that this junta Brigade Commander happened to be #3 in a Right Sector electoral list. So he is the "real thing" - a real Ukrainian Nazi willing to murder, kill, torture anybody, especially the "bugs" and "subhumans" of the Donbass.I think that Givi had the right to shoot him right there, on the spot.All he got, is a good slap on his ape-like skull. Oh, and that happened on camera. I say - good thing that Givi did that on camera for the whole world to see. This is how a real officer should treat a death-squad gang leader.I also hope that the Novorussians will put that sorry Nazi scumbag on trial, that the trial will be public, and that he will get 30 years in jail (I oppose the death penalty and sentences over 30 years on principle). And I don't think that the ICRC or anybody else should be granted access to this war criminal (except psychiatrists and those researching psychopaths/sociopaths). As for the rest of them, I would send them home - at least they were minor riffraff not worth spending much time on.I generally and sincerely feel sorry for the poor Ukrainian kids drafted to become cannon fodder for the junta and who get slaughtered by the Novorussian forces. I really do. But in this case, I simply am unable to muster any kind of pity for that evil piece of shit. Sorry. I call it as I see it. And if somebody tells me that my feelings are crude and non-Christian I will fully agree. I wish I could feel any Christian compassion for that guy, I can't. And I won't pretend.The Saker

Recap: In 1971 Bretton Woods failed. The United States implemented a new strategy: Disregard its twin deficits and act as a gargantuan vacuum cleaner that sucked in the trade surpluses of Germany, Japan and later China, attracting into Wall Street between $3 to $5 billion net on each working day. Forcing productivity and zero real wage rises created a further daily 5$ billion domestically for corporations. All this money, in Wall Street banks, created new money with financialisation. By 2007 for every one dollar issued by the Fed 50 dollars of this bank private money (mainly CDOs) were circulating. It took a small correction in the housing market to collapse this bubble and we write 2008. The CDOs became worthless and to save the criminal banks, governments printed trillions of public money. Debt was transferred to the tax payer. The banking system was not reformed, to the contrary, it kept the freedom to speculate, to short and manipulate the world economy.Greece: A common currency, like the Euro, requires monetary and fiscal coordination. As long as debt, taxes and government expenditure stays national, the weakest members of this monetary union have to run deficits and borrow. A country which creates surplus (like Germany) needs to invest this surplus in the weaker members, to create employment and development, to maintain their health and their demand for German products. It was never done. Borrowing was easy and rampant until 2008. Enter 2008: The European banking system (mainly Germany and France) holds debt from Spain, Italy, Greece and others. Germany, mainly, could have searched for a sustainable debt relief and repayment, taking into account the debtors ability, instead it instructed austerity and the granting of new and expensive loans to repay ultimately the German banks.Enter 2015: Expensive $240 billion loans did nothing to help Greece. 25% unemployment (50% unemployed youths), halving of pensions, failing medical and social assistance and being treated as a 2nd class European is the result of the mantra "that debt is a contract and contracts must be honoured" (Lagarde). The political class failed and Greece could have gone to 'Golden Dawn', the fascists, but it did not, as others in Europe do by taking refuge in nationalistic and xenophobe movements, instead it voted in a modern socialist alternative, based on democracy and solidarity.Enter Syriza: The Thessaloniki declaration demands: 1. Confronting the humanitarian crisis 2. Restarting the economy and promoting tax justice 3. Regaining employment 4. Transforming the political system to deepen democracy On (4) the immediate programme is:

Regional organization of the state. Enhancement of transparency, of the economic autonomy and the effective operation of municipalities and regions. We empower the institutions of direct democracy and introduce new ones.

Empowerment of citizens’ democratic participation. Introduction of new institutions, such as people’s legislative initiative, people’s veto and people’s initiative to call a referendum.

Empowerment of the Parliament, curtailment of parliamentary immunity, and repeal of the peculiar legal regime of MPs’ non-prosecution.

Regulation of the radio/television landscape by observing all legal preconditions and adhering to strict financial, tax, and social-security criteria.

Re-establishment of ERT (Public Radio and Television) on a zero basis.

In my role as a representative of the Ukrainian people……activists of the public organisation "Volya" turned to me……providing clear evidence……that within our territory……with support and direct participation…of the US Embassy in Kiev……the "TechCamp" project is realised……under which preparations are being made for a civil war in Ukraine.

The "TechCamp" project prepares specialists for information warfare……and the discrediting of state institutions using modern media……potential revolutionaries……for organising protests…… and the toppling of the State Order.

The project is currently overseen and under the responsibility……of the US ambassador to Ukraine……Geoffrey R. Pyatt.

After the conversation with the organisation "Volya“…… I have learned……that they succeeded to access Facilities in the project "TechCamp“… …disguising as a team of IT specialists.

To their surprise, briefings on peculiarities of modern media were held.

American instructors explained how social networks and Internet technologies……can be used for targeted manipulation of public opinion……as well as to activate protest potential……to provoke violent unrest on the territory of Ukraine……Radicalisation of the population and triggering of infighting.

American instructors show examples of successful use of social networks……used to organise protests…in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya.

About 300 people were trained as operatives, which are now active throughout Ukraine.

The last conference "TechCamp" took place on 14 and 15 November 2013……in the Heart of Kiev on the territory of the US Embassy!

You tell me which country in the world would allow……a NGO to operate out of the ​ US Embassy?

This is disrespectful to the Ukrainian government, and against the Ukrainian People!

I appeal to the Constitutional Authorities of Ukraine with the following question:

Is it conceivable that representatives of the US Embassy……which organise the "TechCamp" Conferences……misuse their diplomatic mission?

–– Let him speak ––

Carry On

UN Resolution of 21 December 1965 regulates……inadmissibility of interference in the internal affairs of a state……to protect its independence and its sovereignty……in accordance with paragraphs one, two and five.

I ask you to consider this as an official beseech……to pursue an investigation of this caseThank You!

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

We are told that these units are staffed by Ukrainians wanting to free their own fellow-Ukrainians from "terrorists".To me, this sure look like an English-speaking terrorist has come to Novorussia to commit genocide against the people of the Donbass.But, hey, that's just me.The Saker

The Zionists:Oh this is too good!!! My two "favorite" Russia-hating Ueber-Zionists join forces in the New York Times to call for the salvation of the Nazi Junta in Kiev by a massive injection of capital.Priceless.Here is what they wrote: (full text)

Save the New Ukraine

A NEW Ukraine was born a year ago in the pro-European protests that helped to drive President Viktor F. Yanukovych from power. And today, the spirit that inspired hundreds of thousands to gather in the Maidan, Kiev’s Independence Square, is stronger than ever, even as it is under direct military assault from Russian forces supporting separatists in eastern Ukraine.

The new Ukraine seeks to become the opposite of the old Ukraine, which was demoralized and riddled with corruption. The transformation has been a rare experiment in participatory democracy; a noble adventure of a people who have rallied to open their nation to modernity, democracy and Europe. And this is just the beginning.

This experiment is remarkable for finding expression not only in defending Ukraine’s territorial integrity from the separatists, but also in constructive work. Maidan’s supporters have moved from opposition to nation building.

Many of those in government and Parliament are volunteers who have given up well-paying jobs to serve their country. Natalie Jaresko, a former investment banker, now works for a few hundred dollars a month as the new finance minister. Volunteers are helping Ukraine’s one million internally displaced people as well as working as advisers to ministers and in local government.

The new Ukraine, however, faces a potent challenge from the old Ukraine. The old Ukraine is solidly entrenched in a state bureaucracy that has worked hand in hand with a business oligarchy. And the reformers are also up against the manifest hostility of Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, who wants at all costs to destabilize Ukraine.

One drawback is that the new Ukraine is a well-kept secret, not just from the rest of the world but also from the Ukrainian public. Radical reforms have been hatched but not yet implemented.

It is instructive to compare Ukraine today with Georgia in 2004. When he became president that year, Mikheil Saakashvili immediately replaced the hated traffic police and removed the roadblocks used to extort bribes from drivers. The public recognized straight away that things had changed for the better.

Unfortunately, Ukraine has not yet found a similar demonstration project. Kiev’s police force is to be restructured, but if you need a driver’s license, you must still pay the same bribe as before.

Mr. Saakashvili was a revolutionary leader who first stamped out corruption but eventually turned it into a state monopoly. By contrast, Ukraine is a participatory democracy that does not rely on a single leader but on checks and balances. Democracies move slowly, but that may prove an advantage in the long run.

The big question is, will there be a long run? Although Russia is in a deepening financial crisis, Mr. Putin appears to have decided that he can destroy the new Ukraine before it can fully establish itself and before an economic downturn destroys his own popularity.

Ukraine will defend itself militarily, but it urgently needs financial assistance. The immediate need is for $15 billion. But to ensure Ukraine’s survival and encourage private investment, Western powers need to make a political commitment to provide additional sums, depending on the extent of the Russian assault and the success of Ukraine’s reforms.

The reformers, who want to avoid the leakages that were characteristic of the old Ukraine, have expressed their wish to be held accountable for all expenditures. They are passing extensive legislation but also want the International Monetary Fund to go on exercising oversight.

Unfortunately, just as democracies are slow to move, an association of democracies like the European Union is even slower. Mr. Putin is exploiting this.

It is not only the future of Ukraine that’s at stake, but that of the European Union itself. The loss of Ukraine would be an enormous blow; it would empower a Russian alternative to the European Union based on the rule of force rather than the rule of law. But if Europe delivered the financial assistance that Ukraine needs, Mr. Putin would eventually be forced to abandon his aggression. At the moment, he can argue that Russia’s economic troubles are caused by Western hostility, and the Russian public finds his argument convincing.

If, however, Europe is generous with its financial assistance, a stable and prosperous Ukraine will provide an example that makes clear that the blame for Russia’s financial troubles lies with Mr. Putin. The Russian public might then force him to emulate the new Ukraine. Europe’s reward would be a new Russia that has turned from a potent strategic threat into a potential strategic partner. Those are the stakes.

The way the NYT presents these two bloodthirsty clowns is also typical. One, Soros, is a "philanthropist" while the other, Levi, is a "philosopher". They might as well have presented them as modern day saints.Clearly, the Neocons and their Zionist allies are in a full-war mode, they fear that their russophobic Nazi regime in Kiev is going to tank and they are terrified at the consequences. As they should.The Nazis:Well, just as predicted the Rada in Kiev has declared Russia an "aggressor state". Now all that is needed to "prove" their point is a major false flag to show that hordes of Spetsnaz GRU throat-cutters are slaughtering babies in their cribs (Kuwait), blowing up peaceful shoppers (Markale market), committing genocide (Srebrenica), massacring villages (Racak) or using Viagra as a weapon of war (Libya). Then Putin needs to be upgraded form "new Stalin" to "new Hitler" (or both) and, voilà, the US and NATO will have to "shoulder their historical burden" of having to defend "civilization, human right, freedom and progress" against the revanchist Russian aggressor.I am sorry to have to say that, but I consider a large scale false flag a virtual inevitability by now. God willing, the Junta is in too much disarray and chaos to make it happen, but I think that everybody in the Novorussian resistance needs to go to "red alert" for some crazy move by the Junta.The belly is still fertile from which the foul beast sprangGuys, I am constantly getting a flow of comments about "Jews this Jews that", "Nazis this, Nazis that", and the "killer argument" "Jews cannot be Nazis and Nazis cannot be Jews". Guys, think again. Look at all Zionists and Nazis have in common:1) the belief in the existence of races/ethnicities2) the belief in the superiority of their own race/ethnicity3) the morbid obsession with blood and racial purity4) a phenomenal propensity to use violence to achieve their goals5) the belief that their opponents are not really human6) a morbid interest for the occult (Ahnenerbe, Kabbalism)7) a rabid hatred for Russia, Russians and OrthodoxyNow, of course, they also happened to hate each other. So what? Trotskists hated Stalinists and vice versa, the SS hated the SA and vice versa and the Jesuits hated the Lutherans and vice versa. But in each case these movement spring from the same well (Bolshevism, National-Socialism and Frankish Papism).Zionism and Nazism are born from the same fetid womb: 19th European secular nationalism and, as Brecht so well put it: the belly is still fertile from which the foul beast sprang. This is also the root of Ukrainian nationalism, Russian pan-Slavism, and many other ideologies. Most of them have lost traction and have been repudiated, but in Israel Zionism is still the main official state ideology and the same is true for the part of the ex-Ukraine run by the Nazi junta in Kiev.Now, sincere there are apparently quite a few of you who still hold on to racist/racialist ideas, I feel the need to repeat here what I wrote in my post AngloZionist: Short primer for the newcomers:

Now this might seem basic, but so many people miss it, that I will have to explicitly state it: to say that most US elites are Anglos or Jews does not mean that most Anglos or Jews are part of the US elites. That is a straw-man argument which deliberately ignores the non commutative property of my thesis to turn it into a racist statement which accuses most/all Anglos or Jews of some evil doing. So to be very clear: When I speak of AngloZionist Empire I am referring to the predominant ideology of the 1%ers elites which for this Empire's "deep state". By the way, there are non-Jewish Zionists (Biden, in his own words) and there are (plenty of) anti-Zionist Jews. Likewise, there are non-Anglo imperialists and there are (plenty of) anti-imperialists Anglos. To speak of "Nazi Germany" or "Soviet Russia" does in now way imply that all Germans were Nazis or all Russian s Communists. All this means it that the predominant ideology of these nations at that specific moment in time was National-Socialism and Marxism, that's all.

This is why the listing of Jews in power in Kiev because what is missing from the picture is either a list of all Jews who are not in power in Kiev or the list of all non-Jews who are in power in Kiev, or both.Zionism is to Jews what National-Socialism is to Germans and what Communism is to Russians: a pathology triggered by a slight, but crucial, modification of these nation's "spiritual DNA". This is like comparing healthy tissue to a malignant tumor: very similar but different enough to be fatal.The real enemy:The real enemy is not the Jew, the German or the Russian, of course. The real enemy are evil, satanic ideologies. As Saint Paul so eloquently put it: For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms (Eph. 6:12). He did not say the "1%ers" of course, but if you ask me, this is close enough.I recently got an email from a friend who asked me to stop using the word "Ukie" and I decided to follow his advice because even if some, or even most, Ukrainians nowadays might support the regime of freaks in Kiev, some, even maybe most, do not.Yes, Soros and BHL are Jews. Real evil, bloodthirstily and ugly buffoons whom I despise from the very bottom of my heart. And yes, there ideology is the kind of Neocon Zionism which has become so popular in the USA and, in the past decades, in Israel (original Zionists were dramatically different, socialists, secularists and, actually, I think honest, if mistaken, idealists). Oh, not that I believe for one second that either one of them sincerely cares about his fellow Jews or about Israel. Not at all. Contrary to the popular belief, one does not need to care for Israel at all to be a Zionist. Are you shocked by that statement? Okay, here me out. Here is what I wrote in my "primer":

Let's take the (hyper politically correct) Wikipedia definition of what the word "Zionism" means: it is "a nationalist movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the creation of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the Land of Israel". Apparently, no link to the US, the Ukraine or Timbuktu, right? But think again. Why would Jews - whether defined as a religion or an ethnicity - need a homeland anyway? Why can't they just live wherever they are born, just like Buddhist (a religion) or the African Bushmen (ethnicity) who live in many different countries? The canonical answer is that Jews have been persecuted everywhere and that therefore they need their own homeland to serve as a safe haven in case of persecutions. Without going into the issue of why Jews were persecuted everywhere and, apparently, in all times, this rationale clearly implies if not the inevitability of more persecutions or, at the very least, a high risk thereof. Let's accept that for demonstration sake and see what this, in turn, implies. First, that implies that Jews are inherently threatened by non-Jews who are all at least potential anti-Semites. The threat is so severe that a separate Gentile-free homeland must be created as the only, best and last way to protect Jews worldwide. This, in turn, implies that the continued existence of this homeland should become an vital and irreplaceable priority of all Jews worldwide lest a persecution suddenly breaks out and they have nowhere to go. Furthermore, until all Jews finally "move up" to Israel, they better be very, very careful as all the goyim around them could literally come down with a sudden case of genocidal anti-Semitism at any moment. Hence all the anti-anti-Semitic organizations a la ADL or UEJF, the Betar clubs, the network of sayanim, etc. In other words, far from being a local "dealing with Israel only" phenomenon, Zionism is a worldwide movement whose aim is to protect Jews from the apparently incurable anti-Semitism of the rest of the planet. As Israel Shahak correctly identified it, Zionism postulates that Jews should "think locally and act globally" and when given a choice of policies always ask THE crucial question: "But is it good for Jews?". So far from being only focused on Israel, Zionism is really a global, planetary, ideology which unequivocally split up all of mankind into two groups (Jews and Gentiles), which assumes that the latter are all potential genocidal maniacs (which is racist) and believes that saving Jewish lives is qualitatively different and more important than saving Gentile lives (which is racist again). Anyone doubting the ferocity of this determination should either ask a Palestinian or study the holiday of Purim, or both. Even better, read Gilad Atzmon and look up his definition of what is brilliantly called "pre-traumatic stress disorder".

So we need to be very careful here. First, we cannot fight an Empire whose nature and essence we do not understand. Second, we cannot fight an enemy whom we cannot even name. I therefore submit that speaking of the AngloZionist Empire is not only correct, but even crucial: "Anglo" refers to historical roots and geopolitical reality, "Zionist" refers to its ideological world view. HOWEVER, as soon as we start "counting Jews" or saying that Nazis and Jews cannot be in the same junta, we are immediately falling back into a completely discredited 19th century West European ideology which has triggered many millions of deaths in all the major wars of the past couple of centuries.This is bull. Acting like a bull. In a corrida.Personally, I don't even believe that the word "race". Here again, I will quote my "primer"

First, I don't believe that Jews are a race or an ethnicity. I always doubted that, but reading Shlomo Sand really convinced me. Jews are not defined by religion either (most/many are secular). Truly, Jews are a tribe. A group one can chose to join (Elizabeth Taylor) or leave (Gilad Atzmon). In other words, I see "Jewishness" as a culture, or ideology, or education or any other number of things, but not something rooted in biology. I fully agree with Atzmon when he says that Jews are racist, but not a race. Second, I don't even believe that the concept of "race" has been properly defined and, hence, that it has any objective meaning. I therefore don't differentiate between human beings on the basis of an undefined criterion.

But I am aware that there are people out there who consider themselves as Jews or Jewish (never understood the difference between these two terms, but nevermind). I say - let them. But let's not paint them as the enemy when the enemy is a tribal ideology which is shared by millions of people who do not consider themselves as Jews (US Evangelicals, for starters, millions of them). If we miss the real target and get distracted by the fake one put in front of us by the real enemy, we will act just like a bull in a Spanish corrida: we will always miss the real enemy who will exhaust us and then kill us.Let's us please be smarter and stop constantly chasing the wrong enemy. Let's hit the real enemy there where he really is, there where he hides, there were it will really hurt him. Let's accurately name him. His name is "Legion" because he has many ideologies and manifestations and he shows up in any and all human groups.One last thing: I am truly sick and tired of moderating comments about "Jew this, Jews that" or "Nazis this, Nazis that". So, exceptionally, I will not allow any comments on this post at all. And if some smart ass will post a comment about that elsewhere, I will delete it. I want the level of conversation of this blog to go up, not down, and if that means shutting up the Jew-centric trolling then I will. My apologies to everybody else, but the last thing I want here is 700 comments rehashing all the common racist/racialist inanities which were in fashion in the 20th century.Please read the above post carefully, please re-read my "AngloZionists: a short primer" for a fuller discussion and, whether you agree with my arguments or not, please forgive me for exceptionally not opening this one post to comments.Kind regards to all, cheers,The Saker

First, go to Amazon.com (not Amazon.co.uk or Amazon.fr or any other Amazon site)Then click on "Gift Card" on the top of the pageThen click on "Email" at the "Ways to Send" menuFinally, choose a card and amount. That's it!

Cash by snail mail:

The SakerPO Box 711Edgewater, FL 32132-0711USA

Free Novels (PDF) for Saker Blog Supporters

e-book in *PDF* format - not paperback!

How to contact me:

Main email address: vineyardsaker@gmail.com (for example to be included in the "Saker's friends" low volume mailing list)Alternative/backup emails:vineyardsaker@mail.ruthesaker@unseen.is

RSS feeds for this blog:

WORDS TO LIVE BY:

Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known. If ye continue in My word, then are ye My disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free

Holy Gospel according to Saint Matthew (10:26) and Saint John (8:32)

Trust not in princes, nor in the children of men, in whom there is no safety. His breath shall go forth, and he shall return to his earth; in that day all his thoughts shall perish.

Holy Prophet and King David (Psalm 145:3-4 according to the LXX)

To love. To be loved. To never forget your own insignificance. To never get used to the unspeakable violence and the vulgar disparity of life around you. To seek joy in the saddest places. To pursue beauty to its lair. To never simplify what is complicated or complicate what is simple. To respect strength, never power. Above all, to watch. To try and understand. To never look away. And never, never to forget.

Arundhati Roy

Thou shalt not be a victim.Thou shalt not be a perpetrator.And above all,Thou shalt not be a bystander

Yehuda Bauer

In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act

George Orwell

Each small candle lights a corner of the dark

Roger Waters

I am prepared to die, but there is no cause for which I am prepared to kill. I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent. Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will.

Mahatma Gandhi

I am for truth, no matter who tells it.

Malcolm X

Globalize the Intifada!

Lowkey

I am a pessimist by nature. Many people can only keep on fighting when they expect to win. I'm not like that, I always expect to lose. I fight anyway, and sometimes I win.

Protect Freedom - Join the Free Software Foundation!

Quenelle Epaulee

No to Internet censorship!

Save the Internet from corporate greed!

GNU/Linux distributions I recommend:

Debian, the Universal Operating SystemMint, the easiest to use distributionXubuntu, distribution for older hardwareKnoppix, general purpose distro on live-CDPuppy, small size distribution and live-CDTails, the privacy and security oriented distroUbuntu Studio, distribution for artistsTrisquel, the 100% free softwaredistro

Copyright Notice

All the original content published on this blog is licensed under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 International license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/). For permission to re-publish or otherwise use non-original or non-licensed content, please consult the respective source of the content.

What's a Saker anyway?

The Saker is a large falcon which, sadly enough, is threatened (you can find more info on this wonderful bird here). Do these sakers really monitor vineyards? Well, one does for sure!